Exploring the bases for a mixed reality stroke rehabilitation system, Part II: Design of Interactive Feedback for upper limb rehabilitation

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2011, Pages

  Lehrer, Nicole ^a   Chen, Yinpeng ^a   Duff, Margaret ^a,b   L Wolf, Steven ^a,c   Rikakis, Thanassis ^a  

^a Arizona State University   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARM; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER INTERFACE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INNERVATION; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; PARESIS; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOTHERAPY; SENSORY FEEDBACK; STANDARD; STROKE;

AGED; ARM; FEEDBACK, SENSORY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PARESIS; PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES; STROKE; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 80052556746     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17430003     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-8-54     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Treatment interventions for the paretic upper limb of stroke survivors: a critical review. Barreca S, Wolf SL, Fasoli S, Bohannon R, Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2003 17 220 226 10.1177/0888439003259415 14677218 (Pubitemid 37421122)
2. Adapting an immersive virtual reality system for rehabilitation. Kizony R, Katz N, Weiss PL, J Visual Comput Animat 2003 14 261 268 10.1002/vis.323 (Pubitemid 40930251)
3. Training with computer-supported motor imagery in post-stroke rehabilitation. Gaggioli AMF, Walker R, Meneghini A, Alcaniz M, Lozano JA, Montesa J, Gil JA, Riva G, Cyberpsychol Behav 2004 7 327 332 10.1089/1094931041291312 15257833 (Pubitemid 38880147)
4. Motor rehabilitation using virtual reality. Sveistrup H, J Neuroeng Rehabil 2004 1 10 17 10.1186/1743-0003-1-10 15679945 (Pubitemid 40390053)
5. Virtual environments for motor rehabilitation: Review. Holden MK, Cyberpsychol Behav 2005 8 187 211 10.1089/cpb.2005.8.187 15971970 (Pubitemid 40847797)
6. Virtual environment training therapy for arm motor rehabilitation. Piron L, Tonin P, Piccione F, Iaia V, Trivello E, Dam M, Presence 2005 14 732 740 10.1162/105474605775196580
7. Tailoring virtual reality technology for stroke rehabilitation: a human factors design. Jung Y, Yeh S, Stewart J, Proceedings of ACM CHI 2006 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: 22-27 April 2006; Monteal, Mads Soegaard, 2006 929 934
8. Clinical evaluation of a non-immersive virtual environment in stroke rehabilitation. Edmans J, Gladman J, Clinical Rehabilitation 2009 23 106 116 10.1177/0269215508095875 19164398
9. Virtual reality in acquired brain injury upper limb rehabilitation: Evidence-based evaluation of clinical research. Mumford N, Wilson PH, Brain Injury 2009 23 179 191 10.1080/02699050802695566 19205954
10. Interactive multimodal biofeedback for task-oriented neural rehabilitation. Huang H, Ingalls T, Olson L, Ganley K, Rikakis T, He J, Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2005 3 2547 2550 17282757 (Pubitemid 46229437)
11. Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skills learning. Wulf G, Shea CH, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2002 9 185 211 10.3758/BF03196276 12120783
12. Exploring the bases for a mixed reality stroke rehabilitation system, Part I: A unified approach for representing action, quantitative evaluation, and interactive feedback. Lehrer N, Attygalle S, Wolf SL, Rikakis T, J Neuroeng Rehabil 2011 8 51
13. An adaptive mixed reality training system for stroke rehabilitation. Duff M, Chen Y, Attygalle S, et al. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2010 18 5 531 541 20934938
14. Explicit information interferes with implicit motor learning of both continuous and discrete movement tasks after stroke. Boyd L, Winstein C, J Neurol Phys Ther 2006 30 46 57 16796767
15. Learning implicitly: effects of task and severity after stroke. Boyd LA, Quaney BM, Pohl PS, Winstein CJ, Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007 21 444 454 10.1177/1545968307300438 17416874 (Pubitemid 47246431)
16. A Novel Adaptive Mixed Reality System for Stroke Rehabilitation: Principles, Proof of Concept, and Preliminary Application in 2 Patients. Chen Y, Duff M, Lehrer N, Liu SM, Blake P, Wolf SL, Sundaram H, Rikakis T, Top Stroke Rehabil 2011 18 3 212 230 10.1310/tsr1803-212 21642059
17. Mixed Reality Rehabilitation for Stroke Survivors Promotes Generalized Motor Improvements. Duff M, Chen Y, Attygalle S, Sundaram H, Rikakis T, EMBC 2010, Argentina 2010
18. Reach adaptation and final position control amid environmental uncertainty after stroke. Scheidt RA, Stoeckmann T, J Neurophysiol 2007 97 2824 36 10.1152/jn.00870.2006 17267755 (Pubitemid 46557714)
19. Separate adaptive mechanisms for controlling trajectory and final position in reaching. Scheidt RA, Ghez C, J Neurophysiol 2007 6 3600 3613
20. Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Krakauer JW, Curr Opin Neurol 2006 19 84 90 10.1097/01.wco.0000200544.29915.cc 16415682 (Pubitemid 43172710)
21. What do motor "recovery" and "compensation" mean in patients following stroke? Levin MF, Kleim JA, Wolf SL, Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009 23 313 319 19118128
22. The Study of Orchestration. Adler S, New York: Norton and Company 1989
23. Goal-directed and stimulus-driven determinants of attentional control. Yantis S, Attention and Performance XVIII Cambridge: MIT Press, Driver SMJ, 2000 73 103
24. Rhythm, Music, and the Brain: Scientific Foundations and Clinical Applications. Thaut M, New York: Routledge 2007
25. The Eurhythmics of Jaques-Dalcroze. Jaques-Dalcroze E, Rockville: Wildside Press 2007
26. This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession. Levitin DJ, New York: Dutton Adult 2006
27. Thinking in Sound: The Cognitive Psychology of Human Audition. McAdams S, Bigand E, Oxford: Clarendon Press 1993
28. Constraint-aware computational adaptation framework to support realtime multimedia applications. Chen Y, PhD thesis Arizona State University, Electrical Engineering Department 2009
29. The Motor Activity Log-28: assessing daily use of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D, Light K, Thompson PA, Neurology 2006 67 1189 1194 10.1212/01.wnl.0000238164.90657.c2 17030751 (Pubitemid 44563826)
30. The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity. Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster LJ, Stroke 1999 30 2131 2140 10.1161/01.STR.30.10.2131 10512918 (Pubitemid 29473260)
31. The poststroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S, Scand J Rehab Med 1975 7 13 31
32. Assessing Wolf motor function test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Ellis M, Archer AL, Morgan B, Piacentino A, Stroke 2001 32 1635 9 10.1161/01.STR.32.7.1635 11441212 (Pubitemid 32631916)
33. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Wilcoxon F, Biometrics 1945 1 80 83 10.2307/3001968
34. A dynamic decision network framework for online media adaptation in stroke rehabilitation. Chen Y, Xu W, Sundaram H, Rikakis T, Liu S, ACM Trans Multimedia Comp Comm App 5 2008 1 1 38
35. Mixed Reality for Rehabilitation Group Website. http://ame2.asu.edu/ projects/mrrehab/
36. Reproducibility and Minimal Detectable Change of Three-Dimensional Kinematic Analysis of Reaching Tasks in People With Hemiparesis After Stroke. Wagner JM, Rhodes JA, Patten C, Phys Ther 2008 5 652663
37. An organizing principle for a class of voluntary movements. Hogan N, J Neurosci 1984 11 2745 2754 (Pubitemid 15224418)
38. Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Cirstea MC, Levin MF, Brain 2000 5 940 953 (Pubitemid 30224190)
39. Signal Processing. Winter DA, Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement Hoboken: Wiley, Winter DA, 4 2009 14 44